Waiting for any sort of "proof" that you claim to use as a base for this argument. So taking what other people say about a book as fact, rather than actually reading it and comparing your own opinion, or confirming firsthand the claims made about it. Very scientific.
Dude.... Read it again. I'm using the metaphor of the invisible unicorn to show you your way of argumentation. The burden of proof that the unicorn/god exists lies with the one making the claim. If you make the claim that a god exists, you have to proof it. I bring it up because its THE ONLY SOURCE you have for this god of yours. And outside of the "faith bubble" known authorship and consistency is relevant. Give me evidence that the bible is written by god. Then you can claim it doesnt matter how it got together. Failing to understand that the foundation of the christian faith is a book written by Bronze Age fanatics, over thousands of years (including the OT), filled with stories from all over the Mediteranian (like the Gilgamesh Epos, also known as "The flood"), inconsitencies like the missing resurrection of Christ (a KEY component of the christian faith) in 2 of the 4 gospels and the lack of ANY supporting historical evidence, is a mistake no christian can do.... @ Coexistence I allready posted the links to my souirces, a few pages back. Go read them allready. Also, IF YOU WOPULD FREAKIN READ WHAT I AM SAYING, you would allready know that I studied the bible AND what is written about the bible... why is that concept so hard for you to grasp`?
It didnt make the cut, because even the church at the time the bible was canonized knew that no onw sane would believe it. It is a gospel though, and only one of manyx who arent in the bible. Thats the point. The Bible is not the wiord of god. Its the word of how men would like god to be seen.
You said that you should not read the Bible to understand it. Whether that clashes with earlier posts by you is not my fault. Edit- But if cut from the earliest forms of the Bible, there probably would be little evidence of the small organization of the Church consciously cutting things.
I said that specifically to GeneralofCarthage, because he bragged about reading the bible everyday.... You sure know how to put things out of context dude..
1. You're the one making the claim God doesn't exist. I'm refuting your argument (which you still haven't made.). Also, you seem to have a piss poor understanding of the Judeo-Christian faith. If we were discussing Islam, your argument might be valid: Mohammed was dictated the Koran by the Angle Gabriel (or maybe Raphael, I forget). The New Testament, according to the Christian faith, was divinely inspired. The writers were supposedly given the inspiration to write down the oral traditions of the Christian faith up to that point. Oral tradition: fact. I don't know what you're talking about with the "missing resurrection of Christ", it is in the Bible, which you've obviously never read. Maybe read an actual paper analyzing the Bible before you make that assumption. Just Googling it isn't enough. It is obvious you have no idea what you're talking about, from the several inaccuracies in most of your statements and you utter lack of will to actually make an argument other then asking us to prove it. Come back when you actually are ready to have a serious conversation. Edit: It contradicts your earlier statement and is in no way out of context. Again, you're going to have to step it up.
The default position on an entity that is not visible, can not be touched or demonstrated in observable conditions is that of a non believer. We can demonstrate that atoms exist in observable conditions, therefore we know that they exist. If we could not do it, the logical conclussion is to be an A-atomist. Your argument is: If you cant disprove it, it must be right... Okay: Proof me that following entities do not exist: Thor, zeus, Jupiter, Mithra, Vishnu, The great Juju, Donnar..... If you cant, they obviously must exist, which means your god can not exist (because christianity teaches that he is the only god) This argument is stupid.... From which source do you know that the bible was devinely inspired, except the bible? From nowhere. The Bible is the word of god, because the bible says so. This argument is stupid. I wrote, the resurrection is missing in 2 of the 4 gospels. Which is an inconsitency, and giving the importance of that particular event leaves the question why that is the case. Niot counting that one gospel obviously copie dit from the other (the wording is the same, not sure if "Matthew" copied from "Luke" or vice versa though, would need to look it up) You actually have not read the bible. Bla Bla Bla Bla. There isnt even an argument here, just blabber.
No one has ever "seen" gravity either, but we know that both exist, because we can observe its reactions.
Now, on serious mode, God is a metaphysical being, there are no physical ways (at leats I cant think in anything right now) to prove its existence. How did he communicate with mortal men? I don't know, neither I believe in that; I will let that to our theistics fellas.
There is a nice video of Sam Harris debunking this "metaphysical" claim, so I dont even bother to go there There you go:
He basically said, that argueing that god can not be prooven, because he is metaphysical is not a good argument because we can just take anything, like the comparison he makes with those who believe that Elvis is still alive, and "make" it into a metaphysical claim. It's just a wordplay, to get rid of the burden of proof basically.
I could bring up some Descartes or Platon, but it's too late like to start a mini investigation. Anyways, you don't need any proof, you just believe or not.
Thats where I disagree. I care about the truth. For me to believe an extraordinary claim that would influence the way I live and die to an extreme extent, I need proof. I do realize though that there are prople who doesnt need that. Which to me is highly unlogical.
